Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

Social science research has produced evidence of an 'integration paradox': Perceived discrimination among immigrants and their descendants is stronger, the better integrated they are, as broadly indicated by their education, length of residence, or generational status (e.g. Steinmann, 2019; Verkuyten, 2016). These findings oppose classic assimilation theory, which straightforwardly assumes that perceived discrimination is lower among immigrants who have better successfully established themselves as part of mainstream society (e.g. Gordon, 1964). Social scientists have proposed several explanations of these counterintuitive patterns and produced a rich assembly of mixed empirical evidence, including studies that outright counter the integration paradox (e.g. Maaren & Rijt, 2018). In the current study we focus on one particular explanation of the integration paradox. Under the term the ‘self-protective properties of stigma’, Crocker and Major (1989) propose a controversial objection: humans have psychological incentive to ex-post rationalize personal failures as instances of discrimination to retain a positive image of their skills and self-esteem (see also Major and O’Brien 2005; Thijs and Piscoi 2016). The objection is controversial as it puts the reports of minorities in doubt, although prior research has not come up with a credible and ethical way to empirically distinct personal failures from valid experiences of discrimination. In this study we aim to test this argument experimentally among about 1000 members of minority groups. Using an online experiment, we collect and analyze person-level data about the (in-)accuracy of a) individuals’ perceptions of discrimination compared against b) the actual discrimination they face personally. We introduce an incentive for correctly guessing the true extent of discrimination. By doing so, we make the process as described by Crocker and Major (1989) costly, and we test the hypothesis that individuals are less likely to overestimate the true extent of discrimination when that is costly.

Social science research has produced evidence of an 'integration paradox': Perceived discrimination among immigrants and their descendants is stronger, the better integrated they are, as broadly indicated by their education, length of residence, or generational status (e.g. Steinmann, 2019; Verkuyten, 2016). These findings oppose classic assimilation theory, which straightforwardly assumes that perceived discrimination is lower among immigrants who have better successfully established themselves as part of mainstream society (e.g. Gordon, 1964). Social scientists have proposed several explanations of these counterintuitive patterns and produced a rich assembly of mixed empirical evidence, including studies that outright counter the integration paradox (e.g. Maaren & Rijt, 2018). In the current study we focus on one particular explanation of the integration paradox. Under the term the ‘self-protective properties of stigma’, Crocker and Major (1989) propose a controversial objection: humans have psychological incentive to ex-post rationalize personal failures as instances of discrimination to retain a positive image of their skills and self-esteem (see also Major and O’Brien 2005; Thijs and Piscoi 2016). The objection is controversial as it puts the reports of minorities in doubt, although prior research has not come up with a credible and ethical way to empirically distinct personal failures from valid experiences of discrimination. In this study we aim to test this argument experimentally among about 1000 members of minority groups. Using an online experiment, we collect and analyze person-level data about the (in-)accuracy of a) individuals’ perceptions of discrimination compared against b) the actual discrimination they face personally. We introduce an incentive for correctly guessing the true extent of discrimination. By doing so, we make the process as described by Crocker and Major (1989) costly, and we test the hypothesis that individuals are less likely to overestimate the true extent of discrimination when that is costly.

new scr dev

new scr dev 12 64

new scr dev 12 64

Philip Morris Records; bibliography; report; ille, illegible; marg, marginalia

Philip Morris Records; bibliography; report; ille, illegible; marg, marginalia

This chapter seeks to explore to what degree judges have used their key role regarding the distribution of powers in order to protect the territorial self-government of subnational entities in federal systems, especially if they are characterized by the presence of national minorities. This question gains particular salience from the insight that the role of courts is often ambivalent, as they may in fact contribute to both “making” federalism and “unmaking” it. The chapter starts with a clarification of key concepts and a justification of the selection of federal systems that it draws evidence from. This selection is based on two criteria: first, the existence of a constitutional court entrusted with the ultimate interpretation of the country’s constitution and, secondly, the employment of federalism as a tool to ensure the territorial self-government of one or more national minorities. The chapter then goes on to analyze from a comparative perspective to what degree judges have protected territorial self-government in four countries, namely Canada, India, Belgium and Spain. It does so with a focus on the distribution of powers and thereby covers jurisprudence on three of the most important dimensions of how responsibilities are allocated. These dimensions are exclusive subnational powers, concurrent powers and the suspension of subnational powers under provisions of emergency rule, all of which are litmus tests for the judicial protection of self-government. On this basis, the chapter’s comparative conclusions point out that judges in each of the four countries have strongly protected territorial self-government in some of the three analyzed dimensions of the distribution of powers and less so in others, thus confirming the importance of a differentiated and in-depth approach. They also discuss whether a change from the traditional role of judges as federal arbiters enforcing the constitution to a new role as active facilitators of conflict management can be useful for guaranteeing that interests of subnational entities are respected.

Protecting Sensitive Information The Virtue of Self-Restraint

1Letters of Ulysses S. Grant to His Father and His Youngest Sister

By Jesse Grant Cramer and Ulysses S. Grant

Among the national leaders whose names will always hold an honorable place in American history is Ulysses S. Grant, the simple-hearted man and capable soldier, to whose patriotism, courage, persistence, and skill was so largely due the successful termination of the war between the States, the contest which assured the foundations of the Republic. We are interested not only in learning what this man did, but in coming to know, as far as may be practicable, what manner of man he was. It is all-important in a study of development of character to have placed within reach the utterances of the man himself. There is no utterance that can give as faithful a picture of a man's method of thought and principle of action as the personal letter written, with no thought of later publication, to those who are near to him.<BR><BR>This collection of letters will constitute a suitable companion volume to Grant's <I>Personal Memoirs</I> and to the accepted biographies of the Great Commander whose memory is honored by his fellow-citizens not only for the patience, persistence, and skill of the leader of armies, as evidenced in the brilliant campaigns that culminated with Vicksburg, Missionary Ridge, and Appomattox, but for the sturdy integrity of character, modest bearing, and sweetness of nature of the great citizen. (Excerpt from the preface)